Talk:L. Frank Baum
I see religion is unknown. Apparently he was a thesophisist. Never heard thereof. Turtle Fan 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Is it possible that the pilot Lyman Baum was a fictional character who happened to share the author's name, like the US poison gas officer Maxim Litvinov who bears no resemblance to the historical Soviet foreign commisar? Turtle Fan 17:41, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :I'm about 99% certain HT himself confirmed that it was indeed the historical figure during one the chat sessions. TR 18:48, September 28, 2009 (UTC) ::Ah yes, the chat sessions. I really am sorry to have missed those. ::The choice seems so nonsensical. The real Baum was neither military personnel nor even an amateur pilot in all of his life. Turtle Fan 18:57, September 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I liked how Baum's new role was illustrative of how different that world was. HT used historicals more sparingly and creatively in those early days of the series. TR 21:01, September 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::Giving Roosevelt Wilson's Cabinet was not creative, especially when Roosevelt had plenty of Cabinet officers of his own. ::::William Dudley Foulkes was used pretty well. HT even found an unobtrusive way to explain the difference within the narrative. I might have liked seeing Baum the same way. Maybe he volunteered for MWII and stayed on in the Regulars because the economy was so bad. By GWI he's a senior officer, and perhaps even an advocate of exploring the newfangled aeroplanes' military applications. He could encounter Moss that way, but I don't like his being a pilot himself, especially not if we're later reminded that all the pilots of that day were young men. ::::And he couldn't've been a career soldier, either, because Queen Zixi of the Ix was published in 1905. So he was a writer by profession, and too old to be drafted and most likely to volunteer, and he presented himself for an elite and relatively cushy job surrounded by hot young studs who don't remember him. I have trouble with all of that. Turtle Fan 21:14, September 28, 2009 (UTC) TWTCE section The TWTCE section is probably best reassigned to lit refs, since it's all about the books, not Baum himself.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:08, August 18, 2016 (UTC) :... this ... :(Agreed, the main emphases is on the movie rather than the man which is covered in The Wizard of Oz.) ML4E (talk) 17:15, August 18, 2016 (UTC) ::Indeed. TR (talk) 19:15, August 18, 2016 (UTC) Do we need the "Lit. Allusions" in the See Also? If we do, then it probably should be directly to the movie article rather than creating a Baum sub-section. ML4E (talk) 16:33, August 20, 2016 (UTC) :Don't know that we "need" it, but it does keep the Lit page more "on the radar". TR (talk) 17:26, August 20, 2016 (UTC) :Huh, my mistake. The link didn't work and I overlooked the "Baum" sub-section so I assumed we didn't have one and didn't think we needed to add it. (I had probably looked under the "F"s for "Frank" without thinking.) ML4E (talk) 17:33, August 20, 2016 (UTC) ''American Front Lyman Baum is described in chapter 7 as "a little skinny guy with a black beard." That doesn't sound like the 50-something which LFB was in 1914. He also appears in chapter 10, but there is no description or indicator of his age; he's interchangeable with every other pilot. I didn't find any other appearances of Lyman Baum in AF. We might want to reevaluate whether the pilot is the historical figure.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 10:05, September 4, 2016 (UTC) :The conversation has been had multiple times. We've come back to the historical figure. TR (talk) 14:59, September 4, 2016 (UTC) ::Based on the description given in the text itself, the AF character can't possibly be the historical figure. The only reason to think he's the historical figure is some uncited alleged chat by HT. The historical figure is referenced in TVO, giving some insight into how the timeline works, so the article should be kept for that alone. The goofs list should be maintained with slight adjustment. I think the two Lyman Baums should be treated as separate characters, much as the two Klement Gottwalds in The Hot War.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:22, September 5, 2016 (UTC) :::I was present for those uncited chats. (And they are uncited because the host went defunct over a decade ago.) Turtledove made it clear that yes, this was ''the Baum. TR (talk) 16:51, September 5, 2016 (UTC) ::::Was he referring to the AF Baum or the TVO Baum? In universe, the AF Baum appears to be a 20-something whose description does not match LFB, regardless of what HT said in a chat. Maybe HT made a mistaken reference to his own work? I'd need more information and contextual references.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :::::It was AF. We're done. TR (talk) 14:08, September 6, 2016 (UTC) Redirect Lyman Baum is a reasonable redirect. Nobody calls him that in OTL. Much like N. Mattoon Thomas, this seems to be a stab at the butterfly effect.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:13, September 14, 2016 (UTC) :I think the discussion in Talk:Boston, Oregon is more relevant since the only references to "Lyman Baum" are in "Lit. Allusions". The rest are to OTL L. Frank Baum. A redirect for one article, and one that discusses OTL figure as well, does not need a redirect. ML4E (talk) 20:20, September 14, 2016 (UTC) Twitter So, checking in on the twitter page, I notice HT essentially confirmed his Baum the pilot was indeed Baum the author. TR (talk) 19:12, April 27, 2017 (UTC) :Specific links, citations, and/or quotes, or it didn't happen.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:05, April 27, 2017 (UTC) :::Geez, jump down his throat why don't you. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:33, April 28, 2017 (UTC) ::Yes, because I'm in the habit of re-litigating old arguments on totally made-up shit. Here's a link. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%40HNTurtledove&src=typd&lang=en TR (talk) 22:53, April 27, 2017 (UTC) :::That's nice. Not exactly the most burning question anyone's had for him after all these years, I'd imagine, but hey. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:33, April 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::That page is horribly written and barely legible.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:07, April 28, 2017 (UTC) :::::Oh, piss off. It's good enough for me, so we've already got two of three mods, and I can't imagine ML4E shares your rabid skepticism. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:50, April 28, 2017 (UTC) :::::Its twitter for crying out loud. Good enough for me. ML4E (talk) 23:21, April 28, 2017 (UTC) References Jonathan, I am going to explain this in some detail so I hope you pay attention and take heed. You have a thing about converting numbers into digital representation. I find this mildly irritating but let it slide unless it changes meaning (e.g. dozen =/= 12 if it is an estimated value). However, a few days ago, you converted the references in The Misplaced Legion from Roman numerals to Arabic digits even though the book uses Roman. In addition, I just picked up a copy of American Front from the library and see the same thing here so I changed it to Roman. The reason is that references are for the user to look-up the actual text if they desire to do so. Making a mental conversion from Arabic to Roman adds a needless level of complexity to the process. Therefore directly quoting the work takes precedence over any whimsical sense of esthetics. In future, please use whatever the book uses. If the chapter is in Arabic then fine, However, if it is Roman numerals then use those. If the chapter number is spelled out (e.g. Chapter Three) then use that. Likewise for page numbers. Usually they will be Arabic but it is not at all uncommon for a preface of several pages to use lower case Roman numerals. If you are references such a page, then follow the book. Is this understood? ML4E (talk) 16:10, April 29, 2017 (UTC) Observer van Zandt I did not make this a red-link because he is effectively a name on a list and part of a group of faceless observers getting out of truck. This is in contrast to Captain Elijah Franklin, who is there arguing with his pilots and then reading out the list of names or Percy Stone who is there as Moss' observer. Both also appear in a couple of later scenes and will be made into "Minor Chars in GW". ML4E (talk) 17:05, June 2, 2017 (UTC) :Given that he has a name and branch of service, I think he should be added as a character.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:58, June 14, 2017 (UTC) :It is a throw-away name without anyone with it appearing. No. ML4E (talk) 19:30, June 14, 2017 (UTC) ::Maybe it's referring to Little Steven? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:54, June 14, 2017 (UTC) ::I did wonder if there was a connection to either Baum or the Oz books/film (e.g. name of a prominent book illustrator / film producer) but found nothing. A joke of that sort is the only thing I can think of that would justify even a "Minor Chars" entry. ML4E (talk) 21:31, June 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Not a Bruce Springsteen or Sopranos joke, then. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:33, June 16, 2017 (UTC) :::Well if you can tie in the E Street Band with either the Oz books or Baum then fine. As for The Sopranos, it premiered January 1999 while GW: AF came out in 1998 so a reference to that would be some trick. On further thought, even that type of tie would probably justify a Lit. Comm. in this article rather than creating an Observer van Zandt entry. ML4E (talk) 16:44, June 17, 2017 (UTC) ::::I'm starting to suspect that my very small joke has fallen flat. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:37, June 18, 2017 (UTC)